Easy winYou learned from researching the topicYou have a case written for when you debate a real opponentDrew attention to a troll who should be removed shortly

Cons:

You want to have a debate but your opponent forfeits or posts rubbishYou are tired if ad-homs from your opponent who believes he is superior to youYou don't feel challengedYou don't get an adrenaline rush everytime your opponent posts a round

Easy winYou learned from researching the topicYou have a case written for when you debate a real opponentDrew attention to a troll who should be removed shortly

Cons:

You want to have a debate but your opponent forfeits or posts rubbishYou are tired if ad-homs from your opponent who believes he is superior to youYou don't feel challengedYou don't get an adrenaline rush everytime your opponent posts a round

Pros and Cons should both be realized. I always try to look at the Pros, life is too short to worry about the Cons. Anyway take the easy win and post again. Next time set a rule for your opponents criteria (3 wins or whatever you specify). That should lower the chances of some dumbass troll accepting. But then again...http://www.debate.org...

Easy winYou learned from researching the topicYou have a case written for when you debate a real opponentDrew attention to a troll who should be removed shortly

More motivation to debate (the same topic)

Cons:

Lack of intellectual challengeYou are forced to deal with people who just forfeit, or post idiotic nonsenseYou are forced to deal with ad hominems as wellYou have wasted a potentially-enlightening experience with a wasted debate with a troll

"Homo sum, humani nihil a me alienum puto." --Terence

"I believe that the mind can be permanently profaned by the habit of attending to trivial things, so that all our thoughts shall be tinged with triviality."--Thoreau

I think it was BlackVoid who suggested to me to use the "first round is for acceptance only" technique to avoid opponents backing out when they see the case. Great idea! The resolution must be clarified and definition given in the challenge nonetheless, other wise it invites semantic arguments.

To that one can add a challenge condition, "Anyone accepting this debate must have at least three wins at DDO. By accepting, my opponent agrees that all points should be voted against him if this condition is not met." Trolls don't have any wins.

If a troll accepts, you can collect the win without revealing the case. The troll gets his jollies from wasting your time, not from collecting losses.